Introduction
What is paedocommunion? Paedocommunion is the practice of allowing those who are in the covenant via baptism, to partake of communion, regardless of age or mental ability. Those of us who hold to this position believe that since children and the mentally deficient have been given the sign of the covenant, baptism, then they should also be allowed to feast at the LORD’s table. This is borne out of a pastoral care for those whom Jesus said of children, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.
Yet, in Reformed circles, there is absolute opposition to paedocommunion even though those in the Reformed community believe in paedobaptism. I believe they do this out of a reverence for the table and a fear of allowing children to drink judgment upon themselves. They want to guard the table against those who are unworthy of taking it. Since 1 Corinthians 11:38-39.
28 But a man must test himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.
I agree that when we come to the table, we are to test ourselves. The difference is that many elders feel this gives them the right to exclude people from the table. I also agree that there should be some exclusion. But where we draw the line is different.
For the paedocommunionist, the line is drawn in such a way that those who are baptized, our children included, should be allowed to the table regardless of whether they can examine themselves or not. Notice the text above: let a man examine himself. I am to examine myself when I come to the table. The elders are not to examine me. They are overstepping their bounds in trying to examine everyone who comes to the table.
As for our children, since they are made holy through our faith, 1 Corinthians 7:14, they should be allowed to partake as well. They need the feeding and nourishment found their just as much as we do.
Now, let me give full-disclosure: paedocommunion has been a burning issue for me for about that past 7 years. It started when I was dabbling with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, looking for a call to full-time ministry. I mentioned that I was sympathetic to those who held to paedocommunion but did not hold to the position myself.
Why was I sympathetic? I had read the OPC’s very own study paper on paedocommunion and felt that the stalwart theologian, G.I. Williamson, had a good point. (Read it in the minutes of the 1988 55th GA, starting on page 374.). He wrote the majority position for the OPC in favor of the practice. The OPC GA rejected the majority position and went with the minority report on paedocommunion instead. This was a major mistake in my opinion. In keeping those in the covenant from the table, no matter the age, is to commit the very sin that Paul was warning against in 1 Corinthians 11. But more on that later.
The problem for me came, as I said, because I was sympathetic. This led to the accusation that I was also Federal Vision. Now, for those not following, Federal Vision is a brand of theology that was attempting to deal with the issue of those who fall away from the faith. Are they still Christians because they have been baptized, or not? It is basically the same battle as the Lordship salvation debates that took place back in the 1990s between John MacArthur and Zane Hodges, only in this instance, the focus is from the covenantal perspective.
More simply put: MacArther and Hodges were debating “once-saved, always saved.” FV was working from the standpoint of “once baptized, always a Christian?”
The FVers were not saying: “who is saved, and who is not save.” They recognize that they cannot make such an assertion. After all, we don’t know who is truly saved and who isn’t when it comes to others in the body. We can for ourselves, but even then, there are those who struggle with assurance.
Now the best FV answer given was that one who is baptized is a Christian, in the same way that one who is married, is always still married, even though they may not act like it. Being baptized brings you into the covenant. If you are obedient to Christ’s calling and His commandments, then He will pour out blessings upon you. If you are disobedient, and even walk away from the faith, then curses will fall upon you.
It doesn’t matter that we are no longer under the law. The New Covenant has it attending blesses and curses just like the Old Covenant did. This is the most basic understanding of what it means to hold to Federal Vision.
When I was dabbling in the OPC, I was neither a Federal Visionist or a paedocommunionist. However, that didn’t matter. I was branded as such. The door to ministry was closed.
I revisited the paedocommunion position once again, now that all the doors to the normal Reformed world were closed. And I became convinced.
Yet, I feel like I need to look at the issue again. This is why the posts have turned in that direction. I want to be sure of my position. As I look more closely at it, I have become even more convinced that allowing children, and the mentally challenged, to come to the table is more of what Christ had in mind when He instituted the sacrament. It is far more pastoral than the stern brow of the man who fences the table from a place of joy to foreboding judgment.
Here are some articles I’ve written before on both communion and baptism:
To Exclude Our Children from the Table, is Excommunication.
Baptism for the Dead